A streamlined pathway for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the BENCHMARK study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is significant potential to streamline the clinical pathway for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of implementing BENCHMARK best practices on the efficiency and safety of TAVI in 28 sites in 7 European countries. METHODS: This was a study of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI with balloon-expandable valves before and after implementation of BENCHMARK best practices. Principal objectives were to reduce hospital length of stay (LoS) and duration of intensive care stay. Secondary objective was to document patient safety. RESULTS: Between January 2020 and March 2023, 897 patients were documented prior to and 1491 patients after the implementation of BENCHMARK practices. Patient characteristics were consistent with a known older TAVI population and only minor differences. Mean LoS was reduced from 7.7 ± 7.0 to 5.8 ± 5.6 days (median 6 vs. 4 days; P < .001). Duration of intensive care was reduced from 1.8 to 1.3 days (median 1.1 vs. 0.9 days; P < .001). Adoption of peri-procedure best practices led to increased use of local anaesthesia (96.1% vs. 84.3%; P < .001) and decreased procedure (median 47 vs. 60 min; P < .001) and intervention times (85 vs. 95 min; P < .001). Thirty-day patient safety did not appear to be compromised with no differences in all-cause mortality (0.6% in both groups combined), stroke/transient ischaemic attack (1.4%), life-threatening bleeding (1.3%), stage 2/3 acute kidney injury (0.7%), and valve-related readmission (1.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Broad implementation of BENCHMARK practices contributes to improving efficiency of TAVI pathway reducing LoS and costs without compromising patient safety.

Patterns of aortic valve replacement in Europe and adoption by sex.

OBJECTIVE: Management of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) may differ according to the patient sex. This study aimed to describe patterns of aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe AS across Europe, including stratification by sex. METHODS: Procedure volume data for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for six years (2015-2020) were extracted from national databases for Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland and stratified by sex. Patients per million population (PPM) undergoing AVR per year were calculated using population estimates from Eurostat. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2019, AVR procedures grew at an average annual rate of 3.9%. In 2020, the average total PPM undergoing AVR across all countries was 339, with 51% of procedures being TAVI and 49% SAVR. AVR PPM varied widely between countries, with the highest and lowest in Germany and Poland, respectively. The average total PPM was higher for men than women (423 vs. 258), but a higher proportion of women (62%) than men (44%) received TAVI. The proportion of TAVI among total AVR procedures increased with age, with an overall average of 96% of men and 98% of women aged ≥85 years receiving TAVI; however, adoption of TAVI varied by country. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of temporal trends in the adoption of TAVI vs. SAVR across Europe showed significant variations. Despite the higher use of TAVI vs. SAVR in women, overall rates of AV intervention in women were lower compared to men.

Device innovation in cardiovascular medicine: a report from the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table.

Research performed in Europe has driven cardiovascular device innovation. This includes, but is not limited to, percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac imaging, transcatheter heart valve implantation, and device therapy of cardiac arrhythmias and heart failure. An important part of future medical progress involves the evolution of medical technology and the ongoing development of artificial intelligence and machine learning. There is a need to foster an environment conducive to medical technology development and validation so that Europe can continue to play a major role in device innovation while providing high standards of safety. This paper summarizes viewpoints on the topic of device innovation in cardiovascular medicine at the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table, a strategic forum for high-level dialogue to discuss issues related to the future of cardiovascular health in Europe. Devices are developed and improved through an iterative process throughout their lifecycle. Early feasibility studies demonstrate proof of concept and help to optimize the design of a device. If successful, this should ideally be followed by randomized clinical trials comparing novel devices vs. accepted standards of care when available and the collection of post-market real-world evidence through registries. Unfortunately, standardized procedures for feasibility studies across various device categories have not yet been implemented in Europe. Cardiovascular imaging can be used to diagnose and characterize patients for interventions to improve procedural results and to monitor devices long term after implantation. Randomized clinical trials often use cardiac imaging-based inclusion criteria, while less frequently trials randomize patients to compare the diagnostic or prognostic value of different modalities. Applications using machine learning are increasingly important, but specific regulatory standards and pathways remain in development in both Europe and the USA. Standards are also needed for smart devices and digital technologies that support device-driven biomonitoring. Changes in device regulation introduced by the European Union aim to improve clinical evidence, transparency, and safety, but they may impact the speed of innovation, access, and availability. Device development programmes including dialogue on unmet needs and advice on study designs must be driven by a community of physicians, trialists, patients, regulators, payers, and industry to ensure that patients have access to innovative care.

Patterns of Aortic Valve Replacement in Europe: Adoption by Age.

INTRODUCTION: The management of patients with severe aortic stenosis may differ according to patients' age. The aim of this analysis was to describe patterns of aortic valve replacement (AVR) use in European countries stratified by age. METHODS: Procedure volume data for AVR, including surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), for the years 2015-2020 were obtained from national databases for twelve European countries (Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland). Procedure volumes were reported by patient age (<50 years, 5-year age groups between 50 and 85 years, and ≥85 years). Patients per million (PPM) population undergoing AVR each year were calculated using population estimates from Eurostat. RESULTS: AVR PPM varied widely between countries, from 508 PPM in Germany to 174 PPM in Poland in 2020. TAVI rates ranged from 61% in Switzerland and Finland to 25% in Poland. AVR PPM increased with age to a peak at 80-84 years, after which it decreased again. AVR procedures increased from 2015 to 2019 at an average annual rate of 3.9%. AVR increased more substantially in people aged ≥80 years than in younger age groups; these older age groups accounted for 30% of all AVR procedures in 2015 and 35% in 2019. TAVI accounted for an increasing proportion of all AVR procedures as patient age increased; an overall average of 96% of males and 98% of females aged ≥85 years received TAVI as the treatment modality, although adoption of TAVI differed between countries. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in the rates of AVR use and the adoption of TAVI versus sAVR between European countries. The use of TAVI has increased in recent years, particularly for older patients.

Quality of Life Measures in Aortic Stenosis Research: A Narrative Review.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients with aortic stenosis (AS) not only have a reduced life expectancy but also a reduced quality of life (QoL). The benefits of an AS intervention may be considered a balance between a good QoL and a reasonably extended life. However, the different questionnaires being used to determine the QoL were generally not developed for the specific situation of patients with AS and come with strengths and considerable weaknesses. The objective of this article was to provide an overview of the available QoL instruments in AS research, describe their strengths and weaknesses, and provide our assessment of the utility of the available scoring instruments for QoL measurements in AS. SUMMARY: We identified and reviewed the following instruments that are used in AS research: Short Form Health Survey (SF-36/SF-12), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), the Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale (IIRS), the HeartQoL, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF), the MacNew Questionnaire, and the Toronto Aortic Stenosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (TASQ). KEY MESSAGES: There is no standardized assessment of QoL in patients with AS. Many different questionnaires are being used, but they are rarely specific for AS. There is a need for AS-specific research into the QoL of patients as life prolongation may compete for an improved QoL in this elderly patient group.

Modifiable risk factors for permanent pacemaker after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: CONDUCT registry.

OBJECTIVE: The onset of new conduction abnormalities requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is still a relevant adverse event. The main objective of this registry was to identify modifiable procedural risk factors for an improved outcome (lower rate of PPI) after TAVI in patients at high risk of PPI. METHODS: Patients from four European centres receiving a balloon-expandable TAVI (Edwards SAPIEN 3/3 Ultra) and considered at high risk of PPI (pre-existing conduction disturbance, heavily calcified left ventricular outflow tract or short membranous septum) were prospectively enrolled into registry. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients were included: 42 (14.0%) required PPI after TAVI and 258 (86.0%) did not. Patients with PPI had a longer intensive care unit plus intermediate care stay (65.7 vs 16.3 hours, p<0.001), general ward care stay (6.9 vs 5.3 days, p=0.004) and later discharge (8.6 vs 5.0 days, p<0.001). Of the baseline variables, only pre-existing right bundle branch block at baseline (OR 6.8, 95% CI 2.5 to 18.1) was significantly associated with PPI in the multivariable analysis. Among procedure-related variables, oversizing had the highest impact on the rate of PPI: higher than manufacturer-recommended sizing, mean area oversizing as well as the use of the 29 mm valve (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.4 to 8.5, p=0.008) all were significantly associated with PPI. Rates were higher with the SAPIEN 3 (16.1%) vs SAPIEN 3 Ultra (8.5%), although not statistically significant but potentially associated with valve sizing. Implantation depth and postdelivery balloon dilatation also tended to affect PPI rates but without a statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Valve oversizing is a strong procedure-related risk factor for PPI following TAVI. The clinical impact of the valve type (SAPIEN 3), implantation depth, and postdelivery balloon dilatation did not reach significance and may reflect already refined procedures in the participating centres, giving attention to these avoidable risk factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03497611.

Severe aortic stenosis management in heart valve centres compared with primary/secondary care centres.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommend use of heart valve centres (HVCs) to deliver optimal quality of care for patients with valve disease but there is no evidence to support this. The hypothesis of this study is that patient care with severe aortic stenosis (AS) will differ in HVCs compared with satellite centres. We aimed to compare the treatment of patients with AS at HVCs (tertiary care hospitals with full access to AS interventions) to satellites (hospitals without such access). METHODS: IMPULSE enhanced is a European, observational, prospective registry enrolling consecutive patients with newly diagnosed severe AS at four HVCs and 10 satellites. Clinical characteristics, interventions performed and outcomes up to 1 year by site-type were examined. RESULTS: Among 790 patients, 594 were recruited in HVCs and 196 in satellites. At baseline, patients in HVCs had more severe valve disease (higher peak aortic velocity (4.3 vs 4.1 m/s; p=0.008)) and greater comorbidity (coronary artery disease (CAD) (44% vs 27%; p<0.001) prior myocardial infarction (MI) (11% vs 5.1%; p=0.011) and chronic pulmonary disease (17% vs 8.9%; p=0.007)) than those presenting in satellites. An aortic valve replacement was performed more often by month 3 in HVCs than satellites in the overall population (52.6% of vs 31.3%; p<0.001) and in symptomatic patients (66.7% vs 43.2%, p<0.001). One-year survival rate was higher for patients in HVCs than satellites (HR2.19; 95% CI 1.28 to 3.73 total population and 2.89 (95%CI 1.64 to 5.11) for symptomatic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the implementation of referral pathways that direct patients to HVCs performing both surgery and transcatheter interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03112629.

The COORDINATE Pilot Study: Impact of a Transcatheter Aortic Valve Coordinator Program on Hospital and Patient Outcomes.

The transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) treatment pathway is complex, leading to procedure-related delays. Dedicated TAVI coordinators can improve pathway efficiency. COORDINATE was a pilot observational prospective registry at three German centers that enrolled consecutive elective patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI to investigate the impact a TAVI coordinator program. Pathway parameters and clinical outcomes were assessed before (control group) and after TAVI coordinator program implementation (intervention phase). The number of repeated diagnostics remained unchanged after implementation. Patients with separate hospitalizations for screening and TAVI had long delays, which increased after implementation (65 days pre- vs. 103 days post-implementation); hospitalizations combining these were more efficient. The mean time between TAVI and hospital discharge remained constant. Nurse (p = 0.001) and medical technician (p = 0.008) working hours decreased. Patient satisfaction increased, and more consistent/intensive contact between patients and staff was reported. TAVI coordinators provided more post-TAVI support, including discharge management. No adverse effects on post-procedure or 30-day outcomes were seen. This pilot suggests that TAVI coordinator programs may improve aspects of the TAVI pathway, including post-TAVI care and patient satisfaction, without compromising safety. These findings will be further investigated in the BENCHMARK registry.

Quality of life after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement using the Toronto Aortic Stenosis Quality of Life Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The Toronto Aortic Stenosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (TASQ) is a validated instrument for assessing quality of life (QoL) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). In this study, we evaluated health status outcomes, based on the TASQ, in patients with severe AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). METHODS: The TASQ registry was a prospective observational registry. Patients with severe AS from nine centres in Europe and one in Canada underwent either SAVR or transfemoral TAVR. Patients completed the TASQ, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and Short Form-12 V.2 prior to the intervention, predischarge, and at 30-day and 3-month follow-ups. Primary end point was the TASQ score. RESULTS: In both the TAVR (n=137) and SAVR (n=137) cohorts, significant increases were observed in all three scores. The overall TASQ score improved as did all but one of the individual domains at 3 months after the intervention (p<0.001). TASQ health expectations were the only domain which worsened (p<0.001). Across TASQ subscores, significant changes were evident from the time of discharge in the TAVR and 30-day follow-up in the SAVR cohort. In a categorical analysis of the TASQ, 39.7% of the TAVR group and 35.0% of the SAVR group had a substantially improved health status at 3 months compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The TASQ captured changes in QoL among patients with severe AS who were treated with TAVR or SAVR. QoL improved substantially after either intervention, as indicated by changes in the TASQ overall score at 3 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03186339.

Setting a benchmark for resource utilization and quality of care in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation in Europe-Rationale and design of the international BENCHMARK registry.

BACKGROUND: The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for treating aortic stenosis (AS) has increased exponentially in recent years. Despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease, disparities in quality of care (QoC) for TAVI patients remain widespread across Europe. Tailored QoC measures will help to reduce resource utilization and improve patient outcomes without compromising patient safety. Using a clear set of QoC measures, the BENCHMARK registry aims to document the progress that can be achieved if such tailored QoC measures are implemented. METHODS: The BENCHMARK registry (BENCHMARK) is a non-interventional, multicenter registry in patients with severe symptomatic AS undergoing TAVI with a 1- and 12-months follow-up. BENCHMARK will be conducted at 30 centers across Europe and will enroll a total of 2400 consecutive TAVI patients. Patients suffering from severe symptomatic AS who undergo TAVI with a balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve will be included. The registry will comprise four phases: (1) a retrospective baseline evaluation phase; (2) an education phase; (3) an implementation phase; and (4) a prospective effect documentation phase (prospective phase). The registry's primary objectives are to reduce the length of hospital stay and accelerate the post-procedural patient recovery pathway, but without compromising safety. The study started in April 2021 and has an estimated completion date of May 2023. DISCUSSION: BENCHMARK will establish QoC measures to reduce resource utilization, intensive care unit bed occupancy, and overall length of hospitalization with uncompromised patient safety post-TAVI (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04579445).

IMPULSE: the impact of gender on the presentation and management of aortic stenosis across Europe.

AIMS: There is an increasing awareness of gender-related differences in patients with severe aortic stenosis and their outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: Data from the IMPULSE registry were analysed. Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) were enrolled between March 2015 and April 2017 and stratified by gender. A subgroup analysis was performed to assess the impact of age. RESULTS: Overall, 2171 patients were enrolled, and 48.0% were female. Women were characterised by a higher rate of renal impairment (31.7 vs 23.3%; p<0.001), were at higher surgical risk (EuroSCORE II: 4.5 vs 3.6%; p=0.001) and more often in a critical preoperative state (7.0vs 4.2%; p=0.003). Men had an increased rate of previous cardiac surgery (9.4 vs 4.7%; p<0.001) and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (4.9 vs 1.3%; p<0.001). Concomitant mitral and tricuspid valve disease was substantially more common among women. Symptoms were highly prevalent in both women and men (83.6 vs 77.3%; p<0.001). AVR was planned in 1379 cases. Women were more frequently scheduled to undergo TAVI (49.3 vs 41.0%; p<0.001) and less frequently for SAVR (20.3 vs 27.5%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present data show that female patients with severe AS have a distinct patient profile and are managed in a different way to males. Gender-based differences in the management of patients with severe AS need to be taken into account more systematically to improve outcomes, especially for women.

Management of patients with severe aortic stenosis in the TAVI-era: how recent recommendations are translated into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 3.4% of adults aged >75 years suffer from aortic stenosis (AS). Guideline indications for aortic valve replacement (AVR) distinguish between patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic severe AS. The present analysis aims to assess contemporary practice in the treatment of severe AS across Europe and identify characteristics associated with treatment decisions, namely denial of AVR in symptomatic patients and assignment of asymptomatic patients to AVR. METHODS: Participants of the prospective, multinational IMPULSE database of patients with severe AS were grouped according to AS symptoms, and stratified into subgroups based on assignment to/denial of AVR. RESULTS: Of 1608 symptomatic patients, 23.8% did not undergo AVR and underwent medical treatment. Denial was independently associated with multiple factors, including severe frailty (p=0.024); mitral (p=0.002) or tricuspid (p=0.004) regurgitation grade III/IV, and the presence of renal impairment (p=0.017). Of 392 asymptomatic patients, 86.5% had no prespecified indication for AVR. Regardless, 36.3% were assigned to valve replacement. Those with an indexed aortic valve area (AVA; p=0.045) or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; p<0.001) below the study median; or with a left ventricular end systolic diameter above the study median (p=0.007) were more likely to be assigned to AVR. CONCLUSIONS: There may be considerable discrepancies between guideline-based recommendations and clinical practice decision-making in the treatment of AS. It appears that guidelines may not fully capture the complete clinical spectrum of patients with AS. Thus, there is a need to find ways to increase their acceptance and the rate of adoption.

Aortic valve replacement: validation of the Toronto Aortic Stenosis Quality of Life Questionnaire.

AIMS: There is no quality of life tool specifically developed for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) to assess how this chronic condition and its treatment affect patients. The Toronto Aortic Stenosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (TASQ) has been developed to overcome this gap. The results of the validation of the TASQ in patients undergoing treatment for severe AS are presented. METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective study at 10 centres in Europe and Canada, which enrolled 274 patients with severe symptomatic AS undergoing surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Mean TASQ score at baseline was 71.2 points and increased to 88.9 three months after aortic valve implantation (P < 0.001). Increases were seen for the emotional impact (32.0 to 39.0; P < 0.001), physical limitations (14.8 to 22.0; P < 0.001), and physical symptoms (8.5 vs. 11.0; P < 0.001) domains. Internal consistency was good/excellent for overall TASQ score (α = 0.891) and for the physical limitation, emotional impact, and social limitation domains (α = 0.815-0.950). Test-retest reliability was excellent or strong for the overall TASQ (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.883) and for the physical symptoms, physical limitation, emotional impact, and social limitation domains (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.791-0.895). Responsiveness was medium overall (Cohen's d = 0.637) and medium/large for physical symptoms, emotional impact, and physical limitations (0.661-0.812). Sensitivity to change was significant for physical symptoms, physical limitations (both P < 0.001), emotional impact (P = 0.003), and social limitations (P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: The TASQ is a new, brief, self-administered, and clinically relevant health-specific tool to measure changes in quality of life in patients with AS undergoing an intervention.

Differences in the presentation and management of patients with severe aortic stenosis in different European centres.

BACKGROUND: An investigation into differences in the management and treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) between Germany, France and the UK may allow benchmarking of the different healthcare systems and identification of levers for improvement. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of severe AS under management at centres within the IMPULSE and IMPULSE enhanced registries were eligible. RESULTS: Data were collected from 2052 patients (795 Germany; 542 France; 715 UK). Patients in Germany were older (79.8 years), often symptomatic (89.5%) and female (49.8%) and had a lower EF (53.8%) than patients in France and UK. Comorbidities were more common and they had a higher mean Euroscore II.Aortic valve replacement (AVR) was planned within 3 months in 70.2%. This was higher (p<0.001) in Germany than France/ UK. Of those with planned AVR, 82.3% received it within 3 months with a gradual decline (Germany>France> UK; p<0.001). In 253 patients, AVR was not performed, despite planned. Germany had a strong transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) preference (83.2%) versus France/ UK (p<0.001). Waiting time for TAVI was shorter in Germany (24.9 days) and France (19.5 days) than UK (40.3 days).Symptomatic patients were scheduled for an AVR in 79.4% (Germany> France> UK; p<0.001) and performed in 83.6% with a TAVI preference (73.1%). 20.4% of the asymptomatic patients were intervened. CONCLUSION: Patients in Germany had more advanced disease. The rate of intervention within 3 months after diagnosis was startlingly low in the UK. Asymptomatic patients without a formal indication often underwent an intervention in Germany and France.

Rationale and design of a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transcatheter heart valve replacement in female patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve intervention (Randomized researcH in womEn all comers wIth Aortic stenosis [RHEIA] trial).

BACKGROUND: Limited data suggest that transcatheter (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) may be more effective in female than male patients. To date, most evidence is derived from subgroup analyses of large trials, and a dedicated randomized trial evaluating whether there is a difference in outcomes between these interventions in women is warranted. The RHEIA trial will compare the safety and efficacy of TAVR with SAVR in women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve intervention, irrespective of surgical risk. METHODS/DESIGN: The RHEIA trial is a prospective, randomized, controlled study that will enroll up to 440 patients across 35 sites in Europe. Women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, with any but prohibitive surgical risk status, will be randomized 1:1 to undergo aortic valve intervention with either transfemoral TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 or SAPIEN 3 Ultra device or SAVR and followed up for 1 year. The objective is to determine whether TAVR is non-inferior to SAVR in this patient population and, if this is fulfilled whether TAVR is actually superior to SAVR. The primary safety/efficacy endpoint is a composite of all-cause mortality, all stroke, and re-hospitalization (for valve or procedure-related symptoms or worsening congestive heart failure) at 1 year post-procedure. Other outcomes (assessed at 30 days and/or 1 year) include all-cause mortality; bleeding, vascular, cardiac, cerebrovascular and renal complications; aortic valve prosthesis and left ventricular function; cognitive function, health status, and quality of life. DISCUSSION: The RHEIA study has been designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TAVR compared with SAVR specifically in women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, irrespective of the level of surgical risk. The results will be the first to provide specific randomized evidence to guide treatment selection in female patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04160130.

Prespecified Risk Criteria Facilitate Adequate Discharge and Long-Term Outcomes After Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Background Despite the availability of guidelines for the performance of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), current treatment pathways vary between countries and institutions, which impact on the mean duration of postprocedure hospitalization. Methods and Results This was a prospective, multicenter registry of 502 patients to validate the appropriateness of discharge timing after transfemoral TAVI, using prespecified risk criteria from FAST-TAVI (Feasibility and Safety of Early Discharge After Transfemoral [TF] Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation), based on hospital events within 1-year after discharge. The end point-a composite of all-cause mortality, vascular access-related complications, permanent pacemaker implantation, stroke, cardiac rehospitalization, kidney failure, and major bleeding-was reached in 27.0% of patients (95% CI, 23.3-31.2) within 1 year after intervention; 7.5% (95% CI, 5.5-10.2) had in-hospital complications before discharge and 19.6% (95% CI, 16.3-23.4) within 1 year after discharge. Overall mortality within 1 year after discharge was 7.3% and rates of cardiac rehospitalization 13.5%, permanent pacemaker implantation 4.2%, any stroke 1.8%, vascular-access-related complications 0.7%, life-threatening bleeding 0.7%, and kidney failure 0.4%. Composite events within 1 year after discharge were observed in 18.8% and 24.3% of patients with low risk of complications/early (≤3 days) discharge and high risk and discharged late (>3 days) (concordant discharge), respectively. Event rate in patients with discordant discharge was 14.3% with low risk but discharged late and increased to 50.0% in patients with high risk but discharged in ≤3 days. Conclusions The FAST-TAVI risk assessment provides a tool for appropriate, risk-based discharge that was validated with the 1-year event rate after transfemoral TAVI. Registration URL: https://www.ClinicalTrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02404467.

Impact of selected comorbidities on the presentation and management of aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary data regarding the impact of comorbidities on the clinical presentation and management of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) are scarce. METHODS: Prospective registry of severe patients with AS across 23 centres in nine European countries. RESULTS: Of the 2171 patients, chronic kidney disease (CKD 27.3%), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% (22.0%), atrial fibrillation (15.9%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (11.4%) were the most prevalent comorbidities (49.3% none, 33.9% one and 16.8% ≥2 of these). The decision to perform aortic valve replacement (AVR) was taken in a comparable proportion (67%, 72% and 69%, in patients with 0, 1 and ≥2 comorbidities; p=0.186). However, the decision for TAVI was more common with more comorbidities (35.4%, 54.0% and 57.0% for no, 1 and ≥2; p<0.001), while the decision for surgical AVR (SAVR) was decreased with increasing comorbidity burden (31.9%, 17.4% and 12.3%; p<0.001). The proportion of patients with planned AVRs that were performed within 3 months was significantly higher in patients with 1 or ≥2 comorbidities than in those without (8.7%, 10.0% and 15.7%; p<0.001). Furthermore, the mean time to AVR was significantly shorter in patients with one (30.5 days) or ≥2 comorbidities (30.8 days) than in those without (35.7 days; p=0.012). Patients with reduced LVEF tended to be offered an AVR more frequently and with a shorter delay while patients with CKD were less frequently treated. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidities in severe patients with AS affect the presentation and management of patients with severe AS. TAVI was offered more often than SAVR and performed within a shorter time period.

Risk factors for permanent pacemaker implantation in patients receiving a balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve prosthesis.

Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) is a widely recognized complication associated with TAVI (incidence up to 20%). Smaller registries have identified several variables associated with PPI. The objective was to validate patient- and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)-related procedural variables associated with PPI. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients from six European centers undergoing TAVI with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 prosthesis. Baseline variables and pre-procedural ECG characteristics and CT-scans were taken into account. Data for 1745 patients were collected; 191 (10.9%) required PPI after TAVI. The baseline variables pulmonary hypertension (OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.01-2.59), QRS duration > 117 ms (OR 2.58; 95% CI 1.73-3.84), right bundle branch block (RBBB; OR 5.14; 95% CI 3.39-7.72), left anterior hemi block (OR 1.92; 95% CI 1.19-3.02) and first-degree atrioventricular block (AVB, OR 1.63; 95%CI 1.05-2.46) were significantly associated with PPI. RBBB (OR 8.11; 95% CI 3.19-21.86) and first-degree AVB (OR 2.39; 95% CI 1.18-4.66) remained significantly associated in a multivariate analysis. Procedure-related variables included access site (TF; OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.07-4.05), implanted valve size (29 mm; OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.35-2.59), mean TAVI valve implantation depth below the annulus > 30% (OR 3.75; 95% CI 2.01-6.98). Patients receiving PPI had longer ICU stays and later discharges. Acute kidney injury stage 2/3 was more common in patients with PPI until discharge (15.2 vs. 3.1%; p = 0.007), but was not statistically significant thereafter. Further differences in outcomes at 30 days did not reach significance. The data will aid pre- and post-procedural patient management and prevent adverse long-term outcomes.Clinical Trial: NCT03497611.

Facilitated Data Relay and Effects on Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis in Europe.

Background Many patients with severe aortic stenosis are referred late with advanced symptoms or inappropriately denied intervention. The objective was to investigate whether a structured communication to referring physicians (facilitated data relay) might improve the rate and timeliness of intervention. Methods and Results A prospective registry of consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis at 23 centers in 9 European countries with transcatheter as well as surgical aortic valve replacement being available was performed. The study included a 3-month documentation of the status quo (phase A), a 6-month intervention phase (implementing facilitated data relay), and a 3-month documentation of a legacy effect (phase-B). Two thousand one hundred seventy-one patients with severe aortic stenoses were enrolled (phase A: 759; intervention: 905; phase-B: 507). Mean age was 77.9±10.0 years, and 80% were symptomatic, including 52% with severe symptoms. During phase A, intervention was planned in 464/696 (67%), 138 (20%) were assigned to watchful waiting, 8 (1%) to balloon aortic valvuloplasty, 60 (9%) were listed as not for active treatment, and in 26 (4%), no decision was made. Three hundred sixty-three of 464 (78%) patients received the planned intervention within 3 months. Timeliness of the intervention improved as shown by the higher number of aortic valve replacements performed within 3 months (59% versus 51%, P=0.002) and a significant decrease in the time to intervention (36±38 versus 30±33 days, P=0.002). Conclusions A simple, low-cost, facilitated data relay improves timeliness of treatment for patients diagnosed with severe aortic stenosis, resulting in a shorter time to transcatheter aortic valve replacement. This effect was mainly driven by a significant improvement in timeliness of intervention in transcatheter aortic valve replacement but not surgical aortic valve replacement. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT02241447.

Caseload management and outcome of patients with aortic stenosis in primary/secondary versus tertiary care settings-design of the IMPULSE enhanced registry.

Background: Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common and most serious valve diseases. Without timely intervention with surgical aortic valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve replacement, patients have an estimated survival of 2-3 years. Guidelines for the treatment of AS have been developed, but studies suggest that as many as 42% of patients with AS are not treated according to these recommendations.The aims of this registry are to delineate the caseload of patients with AS, outline the management of these patients and determine appropriateness of treatments in participating centres with and without onsite access to surgery and percutaneous treatments. Methods/design: The IMPULSE enhanced registry is an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort registry conducted at four central full access centres (tertiary care hospitals) and at least two satellite centres per hub (primary/secondary care hospitals). An estimated 800 patients will be enrolled in the registry and patient follow-up will last for 12 months. Discussion: In addition to the primary aims determining the caseload management and outcome of patients with AS in primary, secondary and tertiary care settings, the registry will also determine a time course for the transition from asymptomatic to symptomatic status and the diagnostic steps, treatment decisions and the identification of decision-makers in tertiary versus primary/secondary care hospitals. The last patient will be enrolled in the registry in 2018 and results of the registry are anticipated in 2019. Registration number: NCT03112629.